aureon_list_settlements

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: results 'May include orphans (observed vault Rebalanced events not yet bound to an execution)'. However it omits read-only confirmation, pagination, and permission requirements, leaving key behavioral context unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the orphan caveat and the usage tip. No sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Complete for a read-only list tool with full parameter coverage and no output schema: it covers purpose, filter, and an important result caveat. Only pagination/result-shape details are absent, which is minor here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% on the single objectiveId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's 'Optional objectiveId filter' merely reinforces what the schema says without adding syntax or format detail—baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists settlement records') with scope ('for the authenticated wallet'). It clearly distinguishes itself from aureon_get_execution_settlement by being the plural list, but never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an actionable tip ('Read status and executionId before claiming proof') and notes the objectiveId filter is optional, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.